	Still a mildly weaker claim of Harris’ narrative is that gay men, drag preforming and not, do not subvert gender contemporarily and have not eschewed it historically. Alan Sinfield’s “The Challenge of Transgender, the Moment of Stonewall, and Neil Bartlet” argues contrary to Harris that movements of male homosexuality have, historically, have been typified by gender subversion, and that history is repeated in the present day. Sinfield’s history makes the further distinction that discourses on homosexuality, though concerned with the idea of sexual orientation contemporarily, have been far more concerned with the gender identity and performance of their subjects in the past. The object of concern, says Sinfield’s history, was not the gay man’s heterosexuality, but his masculinity and, more specifically, his ‘maleness’. Harris’ attempt to separate drag and transvestitism, in light of this history, which Sinfield argues continues to this day alongside the archetype of the ‘fairy’, becomes even more muddied, as Harris’ notion of drag relies entirely on the idea that the men who preform it do so out of parody and never an attempt at achieving a separate gender identity. 
	A more general review of Sinfield’s and Harris’ two texts reveal a more radical conflict. “The Challenge of Transgender” finds its analysis in extremely specific and historical queer cultures and, only after preforming the arduous walk of historical review, proceeds to make a few mild conclusions on the history of these queer cultures and those following immediately after. Harris’ project, in comparison, is far more vast and forward-facing. Harris’ goal is to capture all aesthetics of drag, that of the past, the present, and to make overtures to grasp at the future, it makes a few references to historical events and a quick look towards Stonewall, but its eyes and its purpose are squared firmly towards its present.  
	Differences between the Butler and the other texts are far larger. Butler’s analysis is grounded well in post-structuralism and, to a lesser degree, in some feminist theory. Butler proceeds from a far more theoretical framework, using axioms preëstablished by other theory writers, to advance claims with only the most occasional use of empirical argumentation. Harris’ text, though similar in its disuse of empirical evidence, offers a navigation of queer history closer to queer politics rather than queer theory; his is more concerned with the immediate temporal environs of drag aesthetics, those near its 1995 submission date, rather than the far future and latent possibilities contained within the queer space. Alan Sinfield’s text, here, is a strange bedfellow. Its conclusions are historical in nature and proceed with extensive amounts of found text and empirical sources, with small concessions and arguments from theory employed arbitrarily.  
	A more notable contention between the texts, however, is the level of causality they find in and around their subjects. Butler’s arguments, here, proceeding from her rigid theoretical framework, offer her the space to create an extensive narrative of the origin of gender, the reasons for which it came about, its means of propagation, and its future. Hers is ultimately the deepest and lengthiest treatment of its subject, though Sinfield offers a close second. Though his historical framework denies him the opportunity to find a causal link between the gender play of gay men and any prompting historical factors, he offers a terse and well-supported claim to its existence, historically and contemporarily. Harris’ text lay claim to a large subject, the whole of the aesthetic history of drag and its role in contemporary society, though his assumptions were ultimately too weak to support his findings on aesthetics. 
